Blogs

Today, the White House dramatically changed its tune on the 5 to 10 million emails reportedly missing from its servers. Since early 2007, the administration has repeatedly acknowledged (to the press and Congress) that it had experienced a "technical issue" and that a still unknown quantity of emails might not have been archived, as required by the Presidential Records Act. But, asked by reporter about the missing emails today at a White House press conference, Tony Fratto, the deputy press secretary, contradicted the administration's previous statements.

Yesterday, a lawyer for Citizens United filed a notice with the U.S. District Court that it will be taking its challenge of the McCain-Feingold act to the Supreme Court. The conservative advocacy group has sued the Federal Election Commission to try to win approval to broadcast ads for its anti-Hillary movie without having to comply with campaign finance laws requiring the group to disclose its donors. Citizens United has argued that "Hillary: The Movie" is a documentary, not campaign propaganda, and that the ads are protected commercial speech advertising the film.

Those arguments literally got laughed out of federal court last week in a hearing on the case. Tuesday, a three-judge panel formally ruled against Citizens United, saying that, "The Movie is susceptible of no other interpretation than to inform the electorate that Senator Clinton is unfit for office, that the United States would be a dangerous place in a President Hillary Clinton world, and that viewers should vote against her."

Undaunted, Citizens United has notified the court that it intends to appeal, and will be asking the Supreme Court for an expedited decision so that it could potentially air the ads during the election season. While some of the group's arguments about the nature of the film are indeed enough to get a federal judge to laugh, some of the more substantive arguments in its appeal should cause concern for campaign finance watchdogs. If Citizens United should happen to win its case, outside interest groups will be free to run all sorts of "issue ads" against political candidates during elections, without ever having to disclose who paid for them.

A federal judge on Thursday allowed Nevada Democrats to hold presidential voting in casino hotels on the Las Vegas Strip, potentially helping Sen. Barack Obama in the next round of the campaign on Saturday.

For the first time, Nevada Democrats planned to set up nine locations for Saturday's vote so casino shift workers, who are largely represented by a union that endorsed Obama, could attend caucuses and vote for a presidential candidate.

A while back, I gave the world the finger about it's dissing of mainstream feminism for not being all things to all people on every corner in every village at every moment everywhere on the planet even as misogyny reigns unchecked. Katha Pollitt, at The Nation, agrees; we're both fed up with Cro Magnons trolling to see which feminist hasn't denounced, and single handedly ended, the atrocity of the day. She's circulating the below open letter which I proudly signed. Last count, she was at about 500 names. I hope it reaches a million. No, writing open letters doesn't save a raped woman from Sharia law in Nigeria. They just tell you to kiss off while we work on it, which is a hell of a lot more than the folks at National Review are doing. Hell no, I won't link to them.

No, not that act, silly. I'm talking about China's pre-Olympics plan to crack down on its karaoke parlors, which are apparently seething with sin:

While entertainment enterprises boost consumer spending and provide jobs and tax revenue, "some are unlicensed and in some, illegal activities such as sex, gambling and drugs are taking place," the Ministry of Culture said in an apparent reference to the many massage parlors that double as brothels.

Drugs? Sex? And to think that at karaoke parlors here in the States we're all jazzed about our friends' hilarious drunk rendition of "Wonderwall."

Just one day after I defended campaign journalism by saying that there aren't enough differences between Clinton and Obama to produce the in-depth pieces the public is craving, I've found two such pieces. But by highlighting the many minor differences between Clinton and Obama (and in one of the two articles, Edwards), the pieces kind of underscore my point.

The first piece comes from the Las Vegas Sun. It acknowledges that the candidates basically have the same goals when it comes to domestic policy, but drills down on six issues and makes note of the differences on the margins. At times, the best the Sun can do is point to small differences in emphasis or focus. But if you're interested in learning more about Obama vs. Clinton vs. Edwards on economic issues, health care, education, nuclear power, internet gambling, and immigration, check out the Sun's good work.

The second comes from CQ Politics, where they've taken a long look at Clinton's and Obama's records in the Senate. Neither candidate, CQ argues, really buck the party line all that often, and neither has taken the lead on major pieces of legislation. Clinton is a more incremental in her approach than Obama, but neither can rightfully claim to be a true "agent of change." In fact, John McCain meets the definition they both put forward on the stump better than they do. It's quite long and quite good; find it here.

So, yes, you can do in-depth pieces on the candidates. But you can't do all that many: now that the Sun and CQ Politics have done these pieces, they won't be able to do something similar anytime soon. If they want to publish every single day.... they have to take rightly deserved kudos and head back to the horserace.

What am I going to wear?! The LA Times' Buzz Bands blog (say that three times fast) has a quick update on this year's lineup for the big festival, and insists that it will not include a reunited My Bloody Valentine. But, but, but, the fake flyersaid they would be there!! The post does contain the most serious-looking list yet of bands "expected" to appear at the festival, some of which have confirmed on their own websites or tour info sites, and some of which would probably be hanging around anyway so why not put them on the bill. There's also the matter of the post's odd title: "Coachella roster slowly takes shape (and getting misshapen)"; is that a hint of a Pulp reunion? Anyone?

The official announcement is expected as early as this Friday (meep! meeep!) but click the good old "continues inside" button for the Times' "expected" list, rearranged by me in order of headliner-y-ness:

And a glimpse into the power of religion, if only religion as culture for a beleaguered minority.

My good friend David Plotz at Slate (who's almost good enough for his amazing-babe wife) spent a year blogging the Bible there in a feat which filled me with writer's penis envy. Whatever you think of the Bible, or any religious text, in the hands of a writer like David, it was can't miss reading. It was so good, in fact, he's now writing a book about it; in furtherance of that, he's in Israel now visiting the Bible's sites and, bien sur, blogging about it. Homey (Chomey?) appears to be in the midst of a full blown epiphany slash religious experience. He almost made me cry today and, like Bill Maher (scroll to third video), I'm pretty religion proof.

It's a gorgeous sunny day in Reno. From my 12th floor hotel room I'm looking out the window at the Circus Circus dome below, the city spread out behind it, and beyond the houses the mountains gently dusted with snow. Above the mountains the sky is patterned with the exhaust lines of jet planes. It's the sort of day that gives the high desert a good name.

You wouldn't know it wondering the antiseptic corridors of the large casinos, dodging in between the armies of slot machines and their robotic human players, listening in on conversations in the cavernous buffets, but there's a lot of politics going on in the state over the next few days.